Speeding ticket: court date unchangeable

[justice123]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

I was pulled over for speeding. Officer clocked me at 90mph, but wouldn't show me radar (said he erased it already). I was driving home from hospital I work at 100miles away. Date set for August 25, but he said to call court if I need to change it. I want to contest the ticket because I didn't think I was going that fast (I was following traffic), and I have to show up anyway because it was 90 and greater.

When I called the court, they said the judge was from another county and would not allow continuance. She said I could plead guilty over the phone and pay $225 with 3 points, and if I didn't show up there would be a warrant for my arrest. When I said that it's too late to notify my hospital to find a doctor to cover, they said basically "too bad, that's the judges rule."

When I said I felt that was unfair, they said my only option is to hire a lawyer who can file a motion for continuance and in that case it was likely. When I asked why can't I do that myself, they said that was the rule of the court.

This seems unfair to me, is there anything else I can do?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

I was pulled over for speeding. Officer clocked me at 90mph, but wouldn't show me radar (said he erased it already). I was driving home from hospital I work at 100miles away. Date set for August 25, but he said to call court if I need to change it. I want to contest the ticket because I didn't think I was going that fast (I was following traffic), and I have to show up anyway because it was 90 and greater.

When I called the court, they said the judge was from another county and would not allow continuance. She said I could plead guilty over the phone and pay $225 with 3 points, and if I didn't show up there would be a warrant for my arrest. When I said that it's too late to notify my hospital to find a doctor to cover, they said basically "too bad, that's the judges rule."

When I said I felt that was unfair, they said my only option is to hire a lawyer who can file a motion for continuance and in that case it was likely. When I asked why can't I do that myself, they said that was the rule of the court.

This seems unfair to me, is there anything else I can do?

So, in a nutshell, you were speeding and you had no idea how fast you were going, since you were just keeping up with traffic.

The cop doesn't have to show you the radar...in fact there are excellent reasons NOT to show it to you.

 

[justice123]

No, I didn't say I was speeding. That's exactly what I am trying to contest. Furthermore, 90mph costs more in points and insurance. Why are they making this hard for me to contest.

I don't check my speedometer every minute. I was following the traffic, and I was going the speed of the traffic. I KNOW I wasn't going 90mph and that makes a difference between court appearance or not and points on insurance.

 

[Zigner]

No, I didn't say I was speeding. That's exactly what I am trying to contest. Furthermore, 90mph costs more in points and insurance. Why are they making this hard for me to contest.

I don't check my speedometer every minute. I was following the traffic, and I was going the speed of the traffic. I KNOW I wasn't going 90mph and that makes a difference between court appearance or not and points on insurance.

No, you have no idea how fast you were going.

 

[HighwayMan]

Following with the flow of traffic is not a defense. Stop worrying about what everyone else was doing and worry about what YOU do.

Basically what you are saying is that you have no meaningful defense. You do not know how fast you were traveling, just that you were following everyone else.

Forget about seeing the radar. What would that have done for you? If you DID see it and it read "90" then you would just complain that it wasn't you - must have been someone else. As another poster said there are good reasons to not let a motorist see the radar.

 

[justice123]

No, you have no idea how fast you were going.

So, why didn't he just show me the radar. There is not proof at all that exists that anyone knows how fast I was going.

 

[justice123]

Following with the flow of traffic is not a defense. Stop worrying about what everyone else was doing and worry about what YOU do.

Basically what you are saying is that you have no meaningful defense. You do not know how fast you were traveling, just that you were following everyone else.

Forget about seeing the radar. What would that have done for you? If you DID see it and it read "90" then you would just complain that it wasn't you - must have been someone else. As another poster said there are good reasons to not let a motorist see the radar.

But without the radar, there is no proof that I was speeding much less going 90mph. Fine, I can accept that following traffic is not excusable. I can accept that I am going to have a speeding ticket which I will pay for. But I am pretty damn sure I did not go 90mph which carries monetary and driving record implicatiosn. When I expressed my disbelief that I was going 90mph and wished to see the radar (the only proof that exists) he said it's erased. I wish to contest this as it is in the end his word against mine. I have no speeding / driving record whatsoever. I am not allowed to contest because they won't allow me continuance which I think is illegal.

 

[Zigner]

So, why didn't he just show me the radar. There is not proof at all that exists that anyone knows how fast I was going.

Because there is no legal requirement to do so. Furthermore, the officer is NOT going to get in a pissing match with you on the side of the road.

 

[Zigner]

But without the radar, there is no proof that I was speeding much less going 90mph.

Yes, there is the unbiased testimony of an officer of the law. Pit that against the absolutely biased testimony of the offender...well, you see where I'm going with this...

 

[justice123]

Yes, there is the unbiased testimony of an officer of the law. Pit that against the absolutely biased testimony of the offender...well, you see where I'm going with this...

Wouldn't the radar gun be the most unbiased testimony? And why can't I get a continuance? Isn't that illegal?

 

[HighwayMan]

Even if you saw the radar it would be his word against yours. Seeing the radar does NOTHING for you. As I stated earlier, then you would start with the "you must have gotten me confused with someone else because I wasn't doing 90".

If the officer did things correctly then subsequent to stopping you he performed an internal calibration test of his radar set - this wipes out the display and sets it back to zero, so he had nothing to show you.

Secondly, I would never let anyone get out of their car on the side of the road just to see a radar set - it's ridiculous and only endangers the motorist unnecessarily. Ultimately, when I stop you your safety is my responsibility.

Thirdly, why am I going to expose MYSELF to unnecessary danger by letting you get out of your car and walk over to look inside of mine? Tactically, that's very poor judgment.

Accept the fact that the officer is not a scammer and had no vested interest in screwing you by making up a fantasy. He can provide proof that his radar set was functioning properly when he goes to court.

 

[justice123]

Even if you saw the radar it would be his word against yours. Seeing the radar does NOTHING for you. As I stated earlier, then you would start with the "you must have gotten me confused with someone else because I wasn't doing 90".

If the officer did things correctly then subsequent to stopping you he performed an internal calibration test of his radar set - this wipes out the display and sets it back to zero, so he had nothing to show you.

Secondly, I would never let anyone get out of their car on the side of the road just to see a radar set - it's ridiculous and only endangers the motorist unnecessarily. Ultimately, when I stop you your safety is my responsibility.

Thirdly, why am I going to expose MYSELF to unnecessary danger by letting you get out of your car and walk over to look inside of mine? Tactically, that's very poor judgment.

Accept the fact that the officer is not a scammer and had no vested interest in screwing you by making up a fantasy. He can provide proof that his radar set was functioning properly when he goes to court.

That's what I was asking to do in the first place: Go to court. However, they won't grant me a continuance. I am sure the officer is not out to "get me," at the same time, I am pretty damn sure I was not going 90mph. That's why I want to contest. At least get the ADAs recommendation. If they won't grant me a continuance, I don't even get the option.

 

[xylene]

Ignoring your incorrect beliefs on the radar...

That's what I was asking to do in the first place: Go to court. However, they won't grant me a continuance. I am sure the officer is not out to "get me," at the same time, I am pretty damn sure I was not going 90mph. That's why I want to contest. At least get the ADAs recommendation. If they won't grant me a continuance, I don't even get the option.

At 90, you are not going to get much of anything AT ALL without a lawyer.

Get a lawyer.

The people in the court and the judge are lawyers.

When lawyers get in big trouble - they are smart and get a lawyer - not defend themselves!

Would you, as a doctor, advise a patient to do their own surgery to save time and money? Of course not - that is stupid.

You can bitch and moan all day but either you or your legal representative must appear in court on the appointed day and time.

(PS - only a lawyer can represent you in court.)

 

[Maestro64]

justice123,

Ignore our resident "your guilty" person, he is just trying to get you to admit you were speeding so he can say your guilty, just pay.

There is no rule about the officer having to show the radar unit, some do, some do not, depending on many opinions of why it is not a good idea to show the person.

There is plenty of ways to defend against a radar ticket specially in traffic, however, based on your other comments about the judge not allowing any sort of continuances I would say he would not be interested in hearing a valid defense unless it was coming from a lawyer.

Obviously, most states have standard rules about court procedures, which all judges are generally required to follow, but there is nothing to preclude them from having their own rules as longs as they are within in guidelines.

Simply put, judges do not have to grant a continuance unless both sides agree, that is you and the prosecution and as long as the judge feels justice is server by doing so. In this case, the judge is basically saying the layman has no legal standing to request a continuance since you most likely will not be able to articulate what it in the best interest of justice, oh can not get a day off is not a legal reason, but the officer on vacation is.

Since the court has put you on notice, the only way you will have any chance of contesting the ticket is by getting a lawyer, it sounds like the judge is not interested in you defending yourself. He might have some traffic lawyers friend who's billable are down in this bad economy.

 

[Zigner]

justice123,

Ignore our resident "your guilty" person, he is just trying to get you to admit you were speeding so he can say your guilty, just pay.

You got that wrong. He needs to admit he's guilty so that he can formulate his own defense. He wants to run in yelling "I DIDN'T SPEED" and THAT will get him shot down.